<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: BGP between two Check Point ClusterXL (HA) in Azure – Session stuck in Active/Idle in Cloud Firewall</title>
    <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Cloud-Firewall/BGP-between-two-Check-Point-ClusterXL-HA-in-Azure-Session-stuck/m-p/276984#M6219</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Some further configuration details and perhaps a diagram might be helpful but an observation is I don't see multihop configured yet your gateways aren't directly connected?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Sat, 16 May 2026 05:28:30 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Chris_Atkinson</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2026-05-16T05:28:30Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>BGP between two Check Point ClusterXL (HA) in Azure – Session stuck in Active/Idle</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Cloud-Firewall/BGP-between-two-Check-Point-ClusterXL-HA-in-Azure-Session-stuck/m-p/276983#M6218</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi everyone,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I’m currently working on a scenario in Azure where I have two Check Point ClusterXL (HA) deployments in different VNETs that need to establish eBGP routing between them.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Environment overview&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;cpfwr1fwvpn1: 10.11.0.0/22&lt;BR /&gt;cpfwr1fwhub1: 10.11.4.0/22&lt;BR /&gt;Connectivity: Azure VNET Peering&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Cluster IP layout:&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;cpfwr1fwhub1&lt;BR /&gt;VIP: 10.11.4.6&lt;BR /&gt;Members: 10.11.4.4, 10.11.4.5&lt;BR /&gt;Internal: 10.11.5.5, 10.11.5.6&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;cpfwr1fwvpn1&lt;BR /&gt;VIP: 10.11.1.6&lt;BR /&gt;Members: 10.11.1.4, 10.11.1.5&lt;BR /&gt;Internal: 10.11.2.5, 10.11.2.6&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Initial BGP configuration:&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I configured BGP between the private VIPs on the external interface (eth0):&lt;BR /&gt;cpfwr1fwhub1&lt;BR /&gt;set bgp external remote-as 64598 on&lt;BR /&gt;set bgp external remote-as 64598 peer 10.11.1.6 on&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;cpfwr1fwvpn1&lt;BR /&gt;set bgp external remote-as 64597 on&lt;BR /&gt;set bgp external remote-as 64597 peer 10.11.4.6 on&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Initial behavior (BEFORE changes)&lt;BR /&gt;BGP state: Idle&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Investigation findings:&lt;BR /&gt;Using ip route get:&lt;BR /&gt;cpfwr1fwhub1&lt;BR /&gt;10.11.1.6 via 10.11.4.1 dev eth0 src 10.11.4.4&lt;BR /&gt;10.11.1.4 via 10.11.5.1 dev eth1 src 10.11.5.5&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;cpfwr1fwvpn1&lt;BR /&gt;10.11.4.6 via 10.11.1.1 dev eth0 src 10.11.1.4&lt;BR /&gt;10.11.4.4 via 10.11.2.1 dev eth1 src 10.11.2.5&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Based on the above, I understand that the VIPs were reachable via eth, but member IPs were resolved via eth1.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Changes implemented (AFTER)&lt;BR /&gt;To fix asymmetry, i added static routes so that VIP + all cluster member IPs are reached via eth0 only:&lt;BR /&gt;cpfwr1fwvpn1&lt;BR /&gt;10.11.4.4/32 via 10.11.1.1 dev eth0&lt;BR /&gt;10.11.4.5/32 via 10.11.1.1 dev eth0&lt;BR /&gt;10.11.4.6/32 via 10.11.1.1 dev eth0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;cpfwr1fwhub1&lt;BR /&gt;10.11.1.4/32 via 10.11.4.1 dev eth0&lt;BR /&gt;10.11.1.5/32 via 10.11.4.1 dev eth0&lt;BR /&gt;10.11.1.6/32 via 10.11.4.1 dev eth0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Current behavior (AFTER changes)&lt;BR /&gt;BGP state: Active / OpenConfirm&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;When reviewing the routing logs, I notice that, i realized that even though the peer is configured against the VIP, but the firewall receives connections from member IPs:&lt;BR /&gt;cpfwr1fwvpn1&lt;BR /&gt;May 15 16:19:04.729369 [routed] WARNING: bgp_get_open(3143): peer 10.11.4.4+22960 (proto) has provided 4 Byte AS 64597&lt;BR /&gt;May 15 16:19:04.729369 [routed] NOTICE: bgp_pp_recv(4215): dropping peer 10.11.4.4+22960 (proto), no such peer configured locally&lt;BR /&gt;May 15 16:19:04.729369 [routed] WARNING: NOTIFICATION sent to 10.11.4.4+22960 (proto): code 2 (OpenMessageError) data&lt;BR /&gt;May 15 16:19:22.182290 [routed] WARNING: bgp_get_open(3143): peer 10.11.4.6 [eBGP AS 64597] has provided 4 Byte AS 64597&lt;BR /&gt;May 15 16:19:22.182290 [routed] WARNING: NOTIFICATION received from 10.11.4.6 [eBGP AS 64597]: code 2 (OpenMessageError) data&lt;BR /&gt;May 15 16:19:22.182290 [routed] NOTICE: bgp_peer_close(6403): closing peer 10.11.4.6 [eBGP AS 64597], state is 5 (OpenConfirm)&lt;BR /&gt;May 15 16:21:32.732262 [routed] WARNING: bgp_get_open(3143): peer 10.11.4.4+63906 (proto) has provided 4 Byte AS 64597&lt;BR /&gt;May 15 16:21:32.732262 [routed] NOTICE: bgp_pp_recv(4215): dropping peer 10.11.4.4+63906 (proto), no such peer configured locally&lt;BR /&gt;May 15 16:21:32.732262 [routed] WARNING: NOTIFICATION sent to 10.11.4.4+63906 (proto): code 2 (OpenMessageError) data&lt;BR /&gt;May 15 16:21:50.185917 [routed] WARNING: bgp_get_open(3143): peer 10.11.4.6 [eBGP AS 64597] has provided 4 Byte AS 64597&lt;BR /&gt;May 15 16:21:50.185917 [routed] WARNING: NOTIFICATION received from 10.11.4.6 [eBGP AS 64597]: code 2 (OpenMessageError) data&lt;BR /&gt;May 15 16:21:50.185917 [routed] NOTICE: bgp_peer_close(6403): closing peer 10.11.4.6 [eBGP AS 64597], state is 5 (OpenConfirm)&lt;BR /&gt;May 15 16:24:00.739103 [routed] WARNING: bgp_get_open(3143): peer 10.11.4.4+64418 (proto) has provided 4 Byte AS 64597&lt;BR /&gt;May 15 16:24:00.739103 [routed] NOTICE: bgp_pp_recv(4215): dropping peer 10.11.4.4+64418 (proto), no such peer configured locally&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;cpfwr1fwhub1&lt;BR /&gt;May 15 14:16:41.361524 [routed] WARNING: bgp_get_open(3143): peer 10.11.1.6 [eBGP AS 64598] has provided 4 Byte AS 64598&lt;BR /&gt;May 15 14:16:41.361524 [routed] WARNING: NOTIFICATION received from 10.11.1.6 [eBGP AS 64598]: code 2 (OpenMessageError) data&lt;BR /&gt;May 15 14:16:41.361524 [routed] NOTICE: bgp_peer_close(6403): closing peer 10.11.1.6 [eBGP AS 64598], state is 5 (OpenConfirm)&lt;BR /&gt;May 15 14:16:58.815991 [routed] WARNING: bgp_get_open(3143): peer 10.11.1.4+3469 (proto) has provided 4 Byte AS 64598&lt;BR /&gt;May 15 14:16:58.815991 [routed] NOTICE: bgp_pp_recv(4215): dropping peer 10.11.1.4+3469 (proto), no such peer configured locally&lt;BR /&gt;May 15 14:16:58.815991 [routed] WARNING: NOTIFICATION sent to 10.11.1.4+3469 (proto): code 2 (OpenMessageError) data&lt;BR /&gt;May 15 14:19:09.367861 [routed] WARNING: bgp_get_open(3143): peer 10.11.1.6 [eBGP AS 64598] has provided 4 Byte AS 64598&lt;BR /&gt;May 15 14:19:09.367861 [routed] WARNING: NOTIFICATION received from 10.11.1.6 [eBGP AS 64598]: code 2 (OpenMessageError) data&lt;BR /&gt;May 15 14:19:09.367861 [routed] NOTICE: bgp_peer_close(6403): closing peer 10.11.1.6 [eBGP AS 64598], state is 5 (OpenConfirm)&lt;BR /&gt;May 15 14:19:26.820545 [routed] WARNING: bgp_get_open(3143): peer 10.11.1.4+45477 (proto) has provided 4 Byte AS 64598&lt;BR /&gt;May 15 14:19:26.820545 [routed] NOTICE: bgp_pp_recv(4215): dropping peer 10.11.1.4+45477 (proto), no such peer configured locally&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Given all of the above, could you please let me know if the configuration being set up is incorrect? Is any specific NAT required? Could this be related to a scenario that is not compatible with Check Point?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Best regards.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 16 May 2026 02:44:38 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Cloud-Firewall/BGP-between-two-Check-Point-ClusterXL-HA-in-Azure-Session-stuck/m-p/276983#M6218</guid>
      <dc:creator>Jose_Luis_Hdz</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2026-05-16T02:44:38Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: BGP between two Check Point ClusterXL (HA) in Azure – Session stuck in Active/Idle</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Cloud-Firewall/BGP-between-two-Check-Point-ClusterXL-HA-in-Azure-Session-stuck/m-p/276984#M6219</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Some further configuration details and perhaps a diagram might be helpful but an observation is I don't see multihop configured yet your gateways aren't directly connected?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 16 May 2026 05:28:30 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Cloud-Firewall/BGP-between-two-Check-Point-ClusterXL-HA-in-Azure-Session-stuck/m-p/276984#M6219</guid>
      <dc:creator>Chris_Atkinson</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2026-05-16T05:28:30Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

